QOTD - quite a challenge to understand this

Question: You said last Sunday that most people are not self-conscious. It seems to me that quite the contrary is true, and that most people are very self-conscious. What do you mean by self-conscious?

Krishnamurti: This is a difficult and subtle question to answer in a few words, but I will try to explain it as well as I can, and please remember that words do not convey all the subtle implications involved in the answer.

Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness. This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness. From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations. The "I" is not a separate entity, as most of us think; it is both the form of energy and energy itself. But that force, in its development, creates its own material, and consciousness is a part of it; and through the senses, consciousness becomes known as the individual. This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning. But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.

I keep returning to this quote from K, but the mind does not seem able to understand the sense of it. Can anyone help? (I realise that in asking this, I seem to be assuming that it IS true, which is not a good starting point).

Does anyone at least have any comments on these words of K? Or perhaps I need to phrase a specific question.

Clive Elwell wrote:Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness. This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness. From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations.

What he is describing here is the process unique to Man, I think. With all other life forms around us, the "force or energy" doesn't create its own "consciousness" with a subsequent arising of an "I" process. Looking at the birds say, there seems to be a very primitive sense of self which is necessary for survival. But in us the 'self' has become complex, autocratic, divisive and destructive. But probably mostly, confused.

K- This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning. But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.

Clive Elwell wrote:Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness.

This suggests that this unique energy exists separate from the body that it creates, forms, does it not? Which suggests that it was there BEFORE the body formed around it, no? And it at least allows the possibility that the unique energy may survive the death of the body.

Dan McDermott wrote:What does he mean by that in bold?

I for one don't know Dan. More and more questions arise whenever I read the quote.

Dan McDermott wrote:With all other life forms around us, the "force or energy" doesn't create its own "consciousness" with a subsequent arising of an "I" process.

I would say that each species of animal definitely has its own consciousness, although that may not give rise to a psychological "I" process. Science has demonstrated the existence of "rat consciousness", for example, in various "hundredth monkey" type experiments. And once K was discovered talking to a picture of a tiger on the wall, using it as some sort of focus to communicate with tiger consciousness (advising it to go deep in the forest, away from man).

Clive Elwell wrote:Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness. This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness. From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations. The "I" is not a separate entity, as most of us think; it is both the form of energy and energy itself. But that force, in its development, creates its own material, and consciousness is a part of it; and through the senses, consciousness becomes known as the individual. This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning. But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.

Here is something that may help a little with the understanding of these early words of K. In the discussion published in "The Reluctant Messiah" K says:

"So what is the quality of that man, that mind that has no sense of division? It is pure energy, isn't it? So our concern is this stream and stepping out of it. "

Here is the quote in a slightly wider context:

K: "I'm saying to myself what happens to the man who really steps out. Here in the river, in the stream, energy is conflict, in contradiction, in strife, in vulgarity. But that's going on all the time ...

A: Me and You.

K: Yes, that's going on all the time. When he steps out of it there is no conflict, there is no division as my country, your country.

A: No division.

K: No division. So what is the quality of that man, that mind that has no sense of division? It is pure energy, isn't it? So our concern is this stream and stepping out of it.

A: That is meditation, that is real meditation, because the stream is not life"

It comes now that there are things in "The Ending of Time" that are relevant to this. I may research them.

re #86 of the thread "What does it mean to deny and yet live with what is?" and re passage quoted at #1 of this thread (reproduced here for clarity)

Clive Elwell wrote:Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness. This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness. From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations. The "I" is not a separate entity, as most of us think; it is both the form of energy and energy itself. But that force, in its development, creates its own material, and consciousness is a part of it; and through the senses, consciousness becomes known as the individual. This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning. But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.

Clive, you asked me for my "take" on this passage and I give it reluctantly since I'm not sure of anything. So keep in mind that I'm not making any claim to actually understanding it.

Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself.

Isn't it a fact that no matter how one interprets “everything”, everything (organic and inorganic) and anything that is looked at or thought about (including looking and thinking) is energy and requires energy? Energy is in everything; everything is energy. You’ll let me know if you disagree with this. But meanwhile I take the liberty of going on.

This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness.

In all things - living and inorganic - energy creates form: all form is energy. In all living things, energy also creates the body or organism, sensation, some form or level of thought-consciousness and awareness. Obviously, what I’m putting forward is my own understanding. I’m not adamantly saying it is so.
It is my understanding that this above phrase is reworded or reiterated as:

This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness.

So then what is the connection or relationship between the omnipresent energy which creates its own materials and “me” saying “my feelings are hurt” or “I feel unhappy because…..”?

From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations.

As I see it, this is “the wrong turn” taken by self - self which “is both the form of energy and energy itself” - out of ignorance.

This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning.

This wrong turn was not taken once long ago in the mist of time. It is taken each time “my feelings are hurt”, each time I'm conceited, each time I'm pleased by things going my way, each time I'm afraid, and so on.

But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.

Isn't it a fact that no matter how one interprets “everything”, everything (organic and inorganic) and anything that is looked at or thought about (including looking and thinking) is energy and requires energy? Energy is in everything; everything is energy. You’ll let me know if you disagree with this. But meanwhile I take the liberty of going on

I well understand that all that is said is tentative, Huguette. We can only express what seems to be so in the moment, and of course we are open to being shown that we are wrong, or at least limited in our perceptions. And thanks for taking up this issue.

My training was scientific, and my comprehension of the term “energy” is conditioned according to that. Hopefully that can be put aside, where necessary.

When I consider the matter scientifically, I would say there is no such “substance” as energy. All one can say is that matter, or waves, can be in states representing high energy or low energy. And the energy of such states can be transferred to and from other things, in various ways. But also a statement of K comes to mind, that “energy has no order”. How can it energy have form if it has no order; does not form imply order?

Also I know, following Einstein’s famous equation, that matter is a form of energy. But essentially I accept what you say, that everything is energy; energy is the building block of everything.Including this thing we vaguely call “consciousness”

Clive Elwell wrote at #14:
I would say there is no such “substance” as energy.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But what directs energy to take one form rather than another form?

Clive,

I don’t mean that energy is a “substance”. As far as I understand, an atom for example can be split, thereby releasing enormous energy. As far as I understand, this energy is not “created” out of nothing; it is somehow within that form (the atom) and “released” when the atom is split. Is it that matter is energy or that energy is IN matter? I don’t know how best to express it because I don’t know how it works. Energy is also released from or by burning wood, steaming water, falling water, ingesting food, etc. Again, as far as I understand, energy is released from these materials; it is not created out of nothing. It was there “all along”.

Then there’s the energy of fear, sex, anger, pleasure, love, curiosity, jealousy, ambition, and so on. Again, I don’t know how best to express it: do these feelings “release” energy, “provide” energy or they “are” forms of energy? I can’t say.

But it seems clear to me that being human - or a snail or a lion - uses, requires, holds and releases energy or perhaps IS a form of energy. There is energy in the atom just as there is energy in the sun, in the mountain, black holes, the clouds, the rain, the mouse ... in “everything”.

And the energy of self has a particular quality in that it is created out of its own ignorance. What a pickle!

I think (not that what I think is important but just to say that what I say is not a certainty) that it’s ok to question everything, to find out about history, to ask what directs energy to take one form rather than another. I certainly don’t know, I can’t explain it. I can only say that, for me, it is Creation or creation - which is beyond the human brain’s capacity to fully understand. So I don’t feel the need to put that particular question. The created cannot think about the uncreated, K said. I certainly don’t think that K was “right” about everything but this to me is beautifully expressed. Maybe it does not strike you in the same way.

By “creation”, don’t we mean that the thing created - the creation - is something that is completely new in every aspect, something which did not exist before, something that is not a modification or an extension of something already known, something that is not copied or based on something else? It may appear to be similar to something else in some respects but it isn't. It is totally new. Creation is pure, guileless, untainted by the known, without ambition, deception, cunning or motive, therefore the quality of innocence permeates the thing created, the creation.

Our history of 5000 years shows us the intellectual or psychological meanderings of Man since Abraham, Socrates, Buddha, Mohammed, and so many others known and unknown - like these present (my) meanderings. In our history, we see Man’s many attempts to “make sense of it all”. And Man has been enthralled by the sayings of Buddha, Jesus, Descartes, Kant, Sartre, Socrates, Ghengis Khan, Alexander, and so on. For the most part, these attempts have been based on a historical, cumulative approach, not on direct perception but in building on, adding to what has already been said and done.

Man cannot help but to be curious. That is his created nature. And when Man suffers, it is his created nature to want an end to suffering. Man cannot help but to try make sense of life through physics and metaphysics, religion, philosophy, politics, education, economics, etc., but these are intellectual endeavours which only increase confusion, don't they? The intellect is how Man has approached all his existential questions. There HAVE BEEN insights but insight has been corrupted by the intellect. Going down all these intellectual tunnels - beliefs, explanations, theories, hypotheses - gives Man a temporary sense of reprieve, of “doing something”, of “getting somewhere” but, after 5000 years, there has been no fundamental, meaningful change in the suffering, confusion and chaos of Man’s life, has there?

We have not found Truth. We get lost in concepts like ontology, dualism, materialism, noumenon, immanence, God, Satan, Good and Evil, democracy, dictatorship, and much much more. We subdivide and adapt the religions, philosophies or teachings of those we regard as wise. Then we subdivide the subdivisions. And we never find what we’re looking for.

Man is ever-ready to throw stones or launch weapons. There is no love in the inquisitor’s heart. Without love, we are all the inquisitor, aren’t we? Without love, we all turn outward and look for the speck, the fault, the blame, the guilt, in our neighbour's eye. How does one “find” or “awaken” love? Isn’t that our fundamental problem? Where there is love, there is no impulse for selfishness, no self-centre, no self-concern, no aggression, no unkindness, is there?

Forgive me if my own meanderings have taken me far afield from what you are questioning. I’ll stop here. Maybe I shouldn’t post this but I want to. Yes, I WANT to. I love the meanderings of the mind which come from discontent and uncertainty ... and perhaps love. Maybe it’s all nonsense. But I don’t think it’s worse than anyone else’s nonsense. No one else is obliged to read it, just as I'm not obliged to consider all that others say.

As far as I understand, an atom for example can be split, thereby releasing enormous energy. As far as I understand, this energy is not “created” out of nothing; it is somehow within that form (the atom) and “released” when the atom is split. Is it that matter is energy or that energy is IN matter?

C: the fact that ALL matter is converted to energy suggests the former, that matter is very very concentrated energy. Isn’t the universe a “miracle”? (just using that word to express my sense of awe)

I don’t know how best to express it because I don’t know how it works. Energy is also released from or by burning wood, steaming water, falling water, ingesting food, etc. Again, as far as I understand, energy is released from these materials; it is not created out of nothing. It was there “all along”.
Other forms of energy “allow” my arm to move, enable me to walk, talk, eat, digest, cry, laugh, think, etc.
Then there’s the energy of fear, sex, anger, pleasure, love, curiosity, jealousy, ambition, and so on. Again, I don’t know how best to express it: do these feelings “release” energy, “provide” energy or they “are” forms of energy? I can’t say.

C: No, neither can I. The definition of energy that I learned in physics suddenly comes to me – it is the capacity to do work. In other words, the capacity to do something, act, change something.

But it seems clear to me that being human - or a snail or a lion - uses, requires, holds and releases energy or perhaps IS a form of energy. There is energy in the atom just as there is energy in the sun, in the mountain, black holes, the clouds, the rain, the mouse ... in “everything”.
And the energy of self has a particular quality in that it is created out of its own ignorance. What a pickle!

C: Well, all one has to do is to see this fact :-). Slightly complicated by the fact any effort is also part of that ignorance :-).

I think (not that what I think is important but just to say that what I say is not a certainty) that it’s ok to question everything, to find out about history, to ask what directs energy to take one form rather than another. I certainly don’t know, I can’t explain it. I can only say that, for me, it is Creation or creation - which is beyond the human brain’s capacity to fully understand. So I don’t feel the need to put that particular question. The created cannot think about the uncreated, K said. I certainly don’t think that K was “right” about everything but this to me is beautifully expressed. Maybe it does not strike you in the same way.

C: One is often struck by the beauty of K’s phrases, and by the deep mystery that they point to towards. I was moved this way when the question “What directs the energy to take particular forms?” came to me. There is no question of anything being right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Reminded of Einstein’s comment:
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.”

I have just looked up the more comprehensive version:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

By “creation”, don’t we mean that the thing created - the creation - is something that is completely new in every aspect, something which did not exist before, something that is not a modification or an extension of something already known, something that is not copied or based on something else? It may appear to be similar to something else in some respects but it isn't. It is totally new. Creation is pure, guileless, untainted by the known, without ambition, deception, cunning or motive, therefore the quality of innocence permeates the thing created, the creation.

C: one gets a sense sometimes, sometimes more profoundly than others, that the whole universe is recreating itself moment by moment.

Our history of 5000 years shows us the intellectual or psychological meanderings of Man since Abraham, Socrates, Buddha, Mohammed, and so many others known and unknown - like these present (my) meanderings. In our history, we see Man’s many attempts to “make sense of it all”. And Man has been enthralled by the sayings of Buddha, Jesus, Descartes, Kant, Sartre, Socrates, Ghengis Khan,

C: Ghengis Khan?

Alexander, and so on. For the most part, these attempts have been based on a historical, cumulative approach, not on direct perception but in building on, adding to what has already been said and done.
Man cannot help but to be curious. That is his created nature. And when Man suffers, it is his created nature to want an end to suffering. Man cannot help but to try make sense of life through physics and metaphysics, religion, philosophy, politics, education, economics, etc., but these are intellectual endeavours which only increase confusion, don't they? The intellect is how Man has approached all his existential questions. There HAVE BEEN insights but insight has been corrupted by the intellect. Going down all these intellectual tunnels - beliefs, explanations, theories, hypotheses - gives Man a temporary sense of reprieve, of “doing something”, of “getting somewhere” but, after 5000 years, there has been no fundamental, meaningful change in the suffering, confusion and chaos of Man’s life, has there?

C: No, there has not, and this is a hugely significant point. Despite all the energy that has gone into the enquiry of the mind, there has been no meaningful change. Can we say “thought has not really got anywhere”, except technically? Of course the very concept of “getting somewhere”, achieving something, may be part of the problem.

We have not found Truth.

C:Well, that is true in itself. And to see that we have not found truth is vastly important, and to feel that fact. And not to convince ourselves that we HAVE found truth. It came recently that there is no truth in the conclusions that mind draws – but there is a possibility of insight coming “all the time”. Insight meaning, the seeing of what is.

We get lost in concepts like ontology, dualism, materialism, noumenon, immanence, God, Satan, Good and Evil, democracy, dictatorship, and much much more. We subdivide and adapt the religions, philosophies or teachings of those we regard as wise. Then we subdivide the subdivisions. And we never find what we’re looking for.
Man is ever-ready to throw stones or launch weapons. There is no love in the inquisitor’s heart. Without love, we are all the inquisitor, aren’t we? Without love, we all turn outward and look for the speck, the fault, the blame, the guilt, in our neighbour's eye. How does one “find” or “awaken” love? Isn’t that our fundamental problem? Where there is love, there is no impulse for selfishness, no self-centre, no self-concern, no aggression, no unkindness, is there?
Forgive me if my own meanderings have taken me far afield from what you are questioning. I’ll stop here. Maybe I shouldn’t post this but I want to. Yes, I WANT to.

C: I am glad that you did, Huguette.

I love the meanderings of the mind which come from discontent and uncertainty ... and perhaps love. Maybe it’s all nonsense. But I don’t think it’s worse than anyone else’s nonsense. No one else is obliged to read it, just as I'm not obliged to consider all that others say.

C: I find myself laughing out loud at this last paragraph of yours, Huguette. Laughing from a sense of joy, unexplained.

Following on from the quote from K in the 30’s, which I was trying to understand, we started to discuss energy itself. This is what came to me yesterday:

Energy is unlimited.

Matter is limited energy. It is held, bound. It must have form.

Thought is matter, and so thought is limited.

Mind (with a capital M, not in the sense of mind, the human mind, but what might be called Universal Mind) is pure energy.

K seemed to be saying that Mind/Energy shaped matter, and I was asking “But what directs energy to take one form rather than another form?” It must be a form of Intelligence, or rather just Intelligence. It seems to me there are two possibilities: either Intelligence is separate from energy, but somehow shapes energy into the forms it takes, or Intelligence IS Mind. The latter seems more rational to me.

At the start of this thread, I was trying to understand the following statement by K:

Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness. This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness. From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations. The "I" is not a separate entity, as most of us think; it is both the form of energy and energy itself. But that force, in its development, creates its own material, and consciousness is a part of it; and through the senses, consciousness becomes known as the individual. This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning. But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.

These words were written in 1936. I have just come across something he said in 1983 (Saanen Q/A 2)

……. So we live in disorder - right? Our brain functions in disorder. Our brain is constantly in conflict therefore it is disorder. Such a brain cannot understand what the mind is? The mind can only be seen, not my mind, or your brain, or my brain, the mind, the mind that has created the universe, the mind that has created the cell, so that mind is pure energy and intelligence. You don't have to believe all this. So that mind, when the brain is free, that mind can have a relationship to the brain, but if the brain is conditioned it has no relationship. So intelligence is the essence of that mind, not the intelligence of thought, not the intelligence of disorder. But it is pure order, pure intelligence and therefore it is pure compassion. And that mind has a relationship with the brain when it is free. Right?

It seems to me that K is basically saying the same thing here as he did in 1936 – nearly 50 years on! And in a form that seems more easily comprehensible – I may be kidding myself. It doesn’t perhaps explain the last phrase, the one that Dan questioned - “This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning.”

I asked a friend for her interpretation of the original quote, and this is what she replied:

You asked me if I understood the K quote. It was written a long time ago and I think his later writing is much more clearly expressed but I think I get the gist. This is my interpretation....

There is the eternal That Which Is. All created phenomena have their own energy field but because they are all SEEMINGLY but not actually seperate from the eternal( K calls it the force or energy) it seems theý lose their connection to it and develop a sense of self - a small ego..Then more and more ignorance. The small self comes from and is always IN the eternal but the developing illusion of separateness seems to cause 'delusions of grandeur' in the created and illusory beings.(and all the problems we indivudually and collectively suffer from).

Of course, inanimate objects do not develop this sense of seperateness but perhaps very soon they will ( computers).

Juan E wrote:I would like to know in which way you divide the next statement ...

Huguette. wrote: </ cite>
Without love, we are all the inquisitor, are not we? Without love, we all turn outward and look for the speck, the fault, the blame, the guilt, in our neighbor's eye

... from your assertion that 'We have not found Truth'

In other words, on which basis can one say 'I have not found the truth' and at the same time say 'without love, I am this or that', if it is not because one get lost in concepts all the time? ... Otherwise i'm afraid that one of those two statements is false.

Hi Juan,

What is "the Truth" that Man has been seeking? Not scientifically, geographically, economically, and so on. I mean the “Truth” that makes Man feel that life is worth living, not a constant struggle to overcome compulsion, hate, fear. Isn’t it freedom from the bondage of compulsion, hate, depression, anxiety, fear? That’s what it is for me. Do you see it differently?

Without claiming to have “found Truth”, can’t one say that there can only be love where there is no hate, compulsion, depression, anxiety or fear? Can’t one say that where there is no love, that is the ground in which fear, hate, etc. flourish? Can there be love where there is fear? It seems to me that there can't be both love and fear. Not to you? If it is so (is it?), if love and hate can’t coexist, if love and depression can’t coexist, can I understand the root of hate, compulsion, fear? Rather than look for intellectual “solutions” or look for love, can I find out what the root of hate and fear is? Can I find out what life IS where fear and hate are totally eradicated? Maybe not.